Google Already Being Asked To Remove Search Results

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
That didn't take long, now did it?

Google has received fresh takedown requests after a European court ruled that an individual could force it to remove "irrelevant and outdated" search results, the BBC has learned. An ex-politician seeking re-election has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed.
Click to expand...
 
I see both sides to this, maybe you did something stupid 20 years ago and it really isn't relevant to who you are right now, but maybe you are still a douche and people should know that you were a douche and still probably are.

I'm more in favor of keeping the results people need less of reason to be douches.
 
The internet is going to be a sad place in 10 years time. It's really depressing.
 
I'm totally behind the EU for starting to kick Google back some after all these years of them doing evil crap to the world.
 
Glad to see that American politicians aren't the only assholes on the planet.

Google has received fresh takedown requests after a European court ruled that an individual could force it to remove "irrelevant and outdated" search results, the BBC has learned.
Click to expand...
That's the sorta thing someone would say when something IS relevant.

A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has requested links to pages about his conviction to be wiped.
Click to expand...
How is that not relevant information? If I were voting, then I would like to know about such things like child abuse.
 
Ashbringer said:
How is that not relevant information? If I were voting, then I would like to know about such things like child abuse.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the ruling but it seems like an easy out would be to just tell people that the information they want to remove is relevant and there for doesn't have to be removed.
 
You know what!?

I hope Google goes through with this and takes down all websites that has to do with European convictions of any kind.Then tell the European Court to have fun with the 20 billion new cases they'll have to inevitably take on, the stupid shits.

Talk about fucking stupid censorship.
 
ITT: No one changes; they are always the same -- except me. I was bad when I was young but it's irrelevant now...

:p

Some of the replies here are puzzling. How is it Orwellian that you are in control of your info? Do you LIKE that mylife and other parasitic sites have your personal info without your permission? The fact that someone is ignorant of how computers work at a given time (AKA still learning) shouldn't allow a company to say, "Tough".
 
Looks like this law already needs some adjustment. You have the right to be forgotten UNLESS you are a politician running for re-election, in which case you have to wait until after the election for the results to be removed.
 
munkle said:
maybe you did something stupid 20 years ago and it really isn't relevant to who you are right now, but maybe you are still a douche and people should know that you were a douche and still probably are.
Click to expand...

So in other words, things I did in my twenties should be cause for deciding if I'm suitable for office 20-30 years later?
 
pigster said:
So in other words, things I did in my twenties should be cause for deciding if I'm suitable for office 20-30 years later?
Click to expand...

Depends, like i said it goes both ways. What if you had a bunch of child porn in your twenties and now you are 50 and want to work at a day care or school... Pretty sure that's important, sometimes there are lifelong consequences to actions, just because something can be forgotten doesn't mean it should be forgotten.

There are also times that yes there is information that should be forgotten but I see more harm in allowing people to remove their info than in allowing it to stay. Its a catch 22, if some politician removes information that he did last time he was in office and then does it again people are gonna say I told you so he did it before, and they are going to ask why weren't they informed of this if they didn't know.
 
So, let me get this straight. You guys are 100% OK with google getting paid to do exactly the same thing, but you're totally against it if it's meant to protect individual rights. Some even call it Orwellian.

Stupid is an understatement.
 
dgz said:
but you're totally against it if it's meant to protect individual rights.
Click to expand...

What rights are being protected here? The right to privacy you say? Obviously not that one because the info was public when it was released and there was no issue with it at that time. It doesn't suddenly become a privacy issue just because time has passed. It's an issue yes but I don't think its a privacy issue, it wasn't private at the time it was first released, it shouldn't be considered private info now. The information is still available as well according to the ruling (the ruling doesn't take down the info just the search result to the info), it just makes it harder to find.

Do we have a right to be forgotten as the this court says? Though question, should we forget the holocaust ever happened? Pretty slippery slope.
 
If it was once made public how is a search engine linking to it illegal? If indeed it was so long ago that it's lost in antiquity there's no reason to sweat it any way.
 
dgz said:
So, let me get this straight. You guys are 100% OK with google getting paid to do exactly the same thing, but you're totally against it if it's meant to protect individual rights. Some even call it Orwellian.

Stupid is an understatement.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think this is a good idea. It ensures individual privacy by allowing an individual to remove search results.
 
Criminal histories are part of public record. You can't have "Freedom of Information" on the one hand without someone possibly wanting to look up your record someday.
 
munkle said:
What rights are being protected here? The right to privacy you say? Obviously not that one because the info was public when it was released and there was no issue with it at that time. It doesn't suddenly become a privacy issue just because time has passed. It's an issue yes but I don't think its a privacy issue, it wasn't private at the time it was first released, it shouldn't be considered private info now. The information is still available as well according to the ruling (the ruling doesn't take down the info just the search result to the info), it just makes it harder to find.

Do we have a right to be forgotten as the this court says? Though question, should we forget the holocaust ever happened? Pretty slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Let's try not to get out of context here. The info being public doesn't mean it's actually accessible in a practical way. Also, asking a foreign entity or individual to remove such and such info based on your local law is extremely likely to produce nothing but lost time and effort on your side and laughter at best on the end. Hence the bureaucrats decision to go with the indexing.

It is very slippery, but if this new law is going to help mute every mention of the holohoax on the internet, I am all for it.
 
The funny ironic thing is, the person who went through all the trouble of getting his history cleaned from search engines is at this very moment gaining notorious publicity of the events he is trying to hide from.
 
So the first complainer is a politician not wanting potential voters to know about the skeletons in his closet. Like nobody saw that coming. :rolleyes:
 
Pathetic. It wouldn't surprise me too much if this kind of draconian demand came to the USA. :(
 
^ Edit: If Canada made the same demand to Google, then searching for Rob Ford would only have 1 page worth of hits! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top